- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 16:45:35 +0100
- To: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
I have been working on the test cases. A current draft can be found: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Dec/att-0068/00-t I have been flagging files and tests as to whether they are in OWL Lite, OWL DL, or OWL Full. *None* of the previous tests are in OWL DL or OWL Lite. Maybe I have misunderstood what OWL DL is. As I understand it OWL DL is the range of the mapping from the abstract syntax. Thus, even a test, such as: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#proposedRDFXMLFunction-FunctionalProperty005 (proposed by Peter) fails to be in OWL DL because it is missing triples that are always produced in the mapping. e.g. considering the premises: <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xmlns:eg ="http://www.example.org/"> <owl:FunctionalProperty rdf:about="http://www.example.org/foo#prop" /> <owl:Thing rdf:about="http://www.example.org/foo#object" /> </rdf:RDF> (or as triples) eg:foo#prop rdf:type owl:FunctionalProperty . eg:foo#object rdf:type owl:Thing . This is not OWL DL, not because of any substantive reason, but simply because in the abstract syntax it is not possible syntactically to say that eg:foo#prop rdf:type owl:FunctionalProperty . without also saying eg:foo#prop rdfs:domain owl:Thing . and choosing between saying either: eg:foo#prop rdfs:range rdfs:Literal . eg:foo#prop rdf:type owl:DatatypeProperty . or: eg:foo#prop rdfs:range owl:Thing . eg:foo#prop rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty . These restrictions are such that, any hand written RDF/XML will fail to be OWL Lite or OWL DL, unless immense care is taken to repeatedly say the obvious. I could go as far as to suggest that the restrictions will make OWL DL unusable with RDF/XML. All-in-all we seem to be creating a situation where two communities will speak two varieties of OWL and any interoperation between them will be quite unlikely. Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2002 10:42:17 UTC